Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 20 Oct 2017 23:44

Rakesh wrote:ego is the least of his worries now. If he is found guilty, it will result in more serious action. At the least, a blot on his service record.


Doesnt look serious enough looks more like incident than accident, Professional Hazard, Thats Life.

raghava
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 18:40

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby raghava » 21 Oct 2017 00:16

Thankfully it appears to have been a minor incident...

Please bear with the machine translation below..
from here ...
https://goo.gl/3sY7Wf

Indian corvette touched during the mooring of the hospital ship "Irtysh"

On Thursday, October 19, an insignificant incident occurred during the mooring in Vladivostok of a detachment of Indian Navy ships: the Kadmat corvette was fed by the hospital ship of the Pacific Fleet Irtysh. It is reportedPrimaMedia.

The cause of the incident was called a complex wind situation and features of mooring. Trying to stick to the berth stern, as practiced by Russian sailors, Indian sailors did not calculate a maneuver and fell on the Irtysh on a tangent.

As the correspondent of PrimaMedia reports , there was no sound of the collision, there were no casualties in the insignificant accident, a small dent is visible on the Russian vessel.

Russian military sailors who meet foreign colleagues on the quay noted that nothing special happened.

A detachment of ships of the Indian Navy arrived in Vladivostok to participate in the maneuvers "Indra-2017". This time the Russian-Indian exercises will be held for the first time in the inter-service format. In past years, military maneuvers were divided into three different stages: Indra Navy, AviaIndra and Indra. Now, a series of events is planned with the simultaneous involvement of the forces of the Pacific Fleet, as well as the personnel, weapons and equipment of the aviation and land units of the Eastern Military District.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Gagan » 21 Oct 2017 20:45

Were there tug boats involved in berthing the ship?
Why don't they get a blame? These are very expensive ships

atma
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 04 Jun 2006 23:37
Location: Frozen Tundra

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby atma » 22 Oct 2017 05:24

Yes they are very expensive (Kamorta class). Why? They are seriously under armed, perhaps less armed than some fast attack boats of 500 ton displacement (let alone corvettes) of other navies. They have short range anti-submarine capability only, with their RBUs. No SAMs, No Anti ship, No Land attack capability worthy of its tonnage. ASW warfare capability is very suspect due to lack of a modern ASW Helo, or long range torpedoes. Other than their blue water under armed capability, which can be a serious liability (would need protection from a frigate/destroyer, unless a part of a CBG) during hostilities, there is nothing on this class of boats that warrants expense, other than newer sensors, sans a credible sonar package fitted yet. The only utility IMHO is to field another ship far away in Naval exercises. We could do just as well, by sending one of our OPVs with similar blue water endurance to these faraway exercises. Perhaps we needed to test out our radars and sensors on the new boats before fitting them for a defensive/offensive role? Are we are preparing only for Chinese Subs in the IOR. not DDGs or FFGs? A Kamorta class boat( touted as a sophisticated front line ship of the Indian Navy) would be would be a lame duck in an encounter with a lone Chinese surface vessel, bristling with arms. Sorry, fellow jingos this has been bugging me for a while. I will shut up.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20164
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 22 Oct 2017 08:19

Ramana yes,splitting an order is insurance.However a report a few yrs ago on delays found that lack of space at the major yards like MDL hampered fitting out after launch.Modular consrt. with pre-fitted sections before launch as in sub constr. isn't prevalent in our yards,plans for the same but no idea how much progress has been made.

P-28s.Abso. right.terribly underarmed,real sitting ducks without TAS and no dedicated ASW helo and anti-missile system.That too at huge cost!. There is a valid point being made out about commissioning warships without their principal weapons and sensors.The IN seem more interested in manning these ships and subs(Scorpene without torpedoes) instead of fighting capability,so that officers get promotions/command,and at least the crew get to grips with the vessels putting them through their paces for part of their desired capability.This could be a dangerous tactic as the enemy could strike suddenly and even be tempted to do so given the knowledge of warships and subs relatively defenceless.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3878
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 22 Oct 2017 08:41

Gagan wrote:Were there tug boats involved in berthing the ship?
Why don't they get a blame? These are very expensive ships


I’d say. Look at the picture. There is a tug pushing Kadmatt by the bow as the stern collided with the Russkie medical ship.

Granted the Kadmatt needs to help with ruddering the stern in the correct direction but it does so under command from the tug I assume.

At least 50% fault of tug.


Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20164
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 22 Oct 2017 12:04

Fortunate v.little damage done.
V.good news of the first Ro-Ro ferry service in India in Gujarat which the PM is inaugurating today.I've been asking for this for 2 decades now.However,the vessel is a small one, we would need a 1000passr. capacity ferryies plus heavy vehicles carrying capability which can do coastal runs linking all our ports on each coast,plus runs to the A&N islands,Lakshadweep ,Sri Lanka ,Burma,etc.This size of vessel would be used by the IN during a crisis for amphib ops as was done in the Falklands by the Royal Navy.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 22 Oct 2017 12:56

Philip wrote:Fortunate v.little damage done.
V.good news of the first Ro-Ro ferry service in India in Gujarat which the PM is inaugurating today.I've been asking for this for 2 decades now.However,the vessel is a small one, we would need a 1000passr. capacity ferryies plus heavy vehicles carrying capability which can do coastal runs linking all our ports on each coast,plus runs to the A&N islands,Lakshadweep ,Sri Lanka ,Burma,etc.This size of vessel would be used by the IN during a crisis for amphib ops as was done in the Falklands by the Royal Navy.


+1 we need many inland Ferry Sevice to promote tourism in the country .....even one connecting within city like South Mumbai to Navi Mumbai would be great to have

atma
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 04 Jun 2006 23:37
Location: Frozen Tundra

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby atma » 22 Oct 2017 13:22

atma wrote:Yes they are very expensive (Kamorta class). Why? They are seriously under armed, perhaps less armed than some fast attack boats of 500 ton displacement (let alone corvettes) of other navies. They have short range anti-submarine capability only, with their RBUs. No SAMs, No Anti ship, No Land attack capability worthy of its tonnage. ASW warfare capability is very suspect due to lack of a modern ASW Helo, or long range torpedoes. Other than their blue water under armed capability, which can be a serious liability (would need protection from a frigate/destroyer, unless a part of a CBG) during hostilities, there is nothing on this class of boats that warrants expense, other than newer sensors, sans a credible sonar package fitted yet. The only utility IMHO is to field another ship far away in Naval exercises. We could do just as well, by sending one of our OPVs with similar blue water endurance to these faraway exercises. Perhaps we needed to test out our radars and sensors on the new boats before fitting them for a defensive/offensive role? Are we are preparing only for Chinese Subs in the IOR. not DDGs or FFGs? A Kamorta class boat( touted as a sophisticated front line ship of the Indian Navy) would be would be a sitting duck in an encounter with a lone Chinese surface vessel, bristling with arms. Sorry, fellow jingos this has been bugging me for a while. I will shut up.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 22 Oct 2017 14:54

atma wrote:Yes they are very expensive (Kamorta class). Why? They are seriously under armed, perhaps less armed than some fast attack boats of 500 ton displacement (let alone corvettes) of other navies. They have short range anti-submarine capability only, with their RBUs. No SAMs, No Anti ship, No Land attack capability worthy of its tonnage. ASW warfare capability is very suspect due to lack of a modern ASW Helo, or long range torpedoes.

At $350 mil each the P-28s are perfectly well priced for the role they perform. Just because the Russians do it doesn't mean the IN needs to start putting cruise missiles on every motorboat it owns.

The P-28 is not required to launch LACMs (the entirety of Pakistan is within range of land/air-launch CMs) nor it is expected to counter enemy warships (which will be handled by IN's CBGs & subs reinforced by the IAF's Su-30s).

It exists to hunt enemy SSKs & SSNs, and for its role, its capability is more than sufficient. Neither torpedoes nor ASW helicopters are intrinsic to the ship's design - they'll be equipped with whatever the IN orders for the fleet as a whole. Those orders may be delayed but that's no reflection on the ship's capability. What matters is its acoustic stealth & its sensors, and in both respects its a very modern design.

Are we are preparing only for Chinese Subs in the IOR. not DDGs or FFGs? A Kamorta class boat( touted as a sophisticated front line ship of the Indian Navy) would be would be a lame duck in an encounter with a lone Chinese surface vessel, bristling with arms. Sorry, fellow jingos this has been bugging me for a while. I will shut up.

The Chinese will not dispatch lone vessels in time of hostilities to areas where the skies are dominated by Indian aircraft, even if the IN's surface fleet is deployed elsewhere. If they did, it still somehow remained undetected by the IN's MPAs, the frigate/destroyer would still lack the OTH-targeting support required to employ its anti-ship weaponry against an IN corvette.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20164
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 22 Oct 2017 16:00

No ASW helos and torpedoes "intrinsic"to the design? Then pray what is the helo hangar for? Do you know the limited range of the ASW RBU-6000 mortars? 6000M.Depth 500M.If the RPK-8 round is used depth Increases to 1000M.This round has anti-torpedo capppability at 4-10M depth.However how do you counter wg wake homing torpedoes?

The sad fact is that we're commissioning warships and subs without their key weaponry.Partly due to babudom and sanctions (Scorpene and ATV torpedoes chosen from the Italian Finnmecc.group that also owns AW) and also due to delays in helo orders,IN shifting goalposts during constr. etc.

With weaponry capable of only a 6km range the P-28s are sitting ducks for any legacy sub from WW2! Next their sonar.What range? Right now there's no TAS which increases the detection range significantly.TAS have ranges exceeding 35nm.Actual detection classified for diff. models.This is for a German model quite old.Only bow and hull sonars,range ltd. to an av. of 20km in littorals. Subs today have torpedoes of 40-50 km range,new French fish make repeated attacks and an endurance of reportedly 2 hrs.

Our NST 58 is a derivative of the A-244.This is a LWT used on many of our warships with a range of approx 15km,torpedo seeker range 2km.Therfore unless the P-28s have their planned TAS plus ASW helo "integral" to the platform,and a BPDMS anti-missile capability to counter sub/ship launched anti-ship missiles,it will be suicidal sending them into action.The lessons of '71 and the loss of the WW2 era light frigate the INS Khukri which had a poor ASW capability in comparison with Pak's Daphne class subs appears not to have been learnt.

To prosecute a sub you usually require 3 assets to pinpoint its location.2 warships and one helo or two helos and one ship.UUVs are also making their entrance to increase a warship's ability of sub detection.No idea if UUVs are also part of the P-28 package.P-28As are supposedly to come with greater capability.Let's hope so.
Last edited by Philip on 22 Oct 2017 16:24, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20164
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 22 Oct 2017 16:21

Any surface combatant today undertaking blue/green water ops will face attack from enemy missiles and torpedoes,apart from air attack,more likely with ASMs rather than dumb bombs.Therefore a valuable asset like the P-28 must have anti-missile and anti-torpedo defence systems.Our smaller Leanders had Sea King ASW helos (last two) plus SeaCat SR Sam's and a Bofors ASW mortar in the bows.They also had A-244 LWTs.The P-28s may be quieter and have the RBUs for launching decoys and close range anti-torpedo rounds ,but can do precious little against wake homers which can defeat towed noisemakers.A towed noisemaker can also lead the torpedo to the ship's wake,why some prefer independent launched decoys as in our RBU rounds.The hope with a towed/launched noisemaker is that it will set off the torpedo's seeker and sonar proximity fuze but there is no knowledge of the type of fuse that may be installed.Hard-kill attempts appear to have failed in the past ,but with the advent of UUVs,it is possible to develop a short range suicide UUV small enough for there to be several rounds in each launcher.WW2 era depth charges ejected from the stern a concept that could be looked at again with smaller rounds to defeat wake homers,but whatever anti-torpedo system is used the ship's sonar capability has to be of a v.high quality to detect an incoming salvo at the earliest.

PS:A v.recent piece by a Chinese naval analyst recommended that the PLAN sends in large numbers of subs into the IOR. Watch this (ocean) space.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 22 Oct 2017 16:31

Philip wrote:No ASW helos and torpedoes "intrinsic"to the design? Then pray what is the helo hangar for? Do you know the limited range of the ASW RBU-6000 mortars? 6000M.Depth 500M.If the RPK-8 round is used depth Increases to 1000M.This round has anti-torpedo capppability at 4-10M depth.However how do you counter wg wake homing torpedoes?

The helo hangar is to store helos, what else? That doesn't make helicopters part of the ship. The IN's helo acquisition being delayed isn't the fault of those who designed the ship and it is idiotic to imply otherwise.

It's like saying a particular rifle design is too expensive or provides insufficient capability - because the army doesn't have adequate stocks of ammunition ("what is the magazine for?").

The RBU exists primarily as point defence against enemy torpedoes and its range is sufficient for the task. The Kamorta's preferred weapon to engage enemy submarines will be the Varunastra, not NST-58, and certainly not the RBU-6000.

The sad fact is that we're commissioning warships and subs without their key weaponry.

That 'sad fact' has nothing to do with the design or cost of the ship.

raghava
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 18:40

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby raghava » 22 Oct 2017 18:56

Philip and Viv S,

FWIW, please do not forget that the P28's also have the Mareech ATDS

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20164
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 22 Oct 2017 19:43

Varunastra will be useless if the vessel cannot detect the sub at 40-50km ranges.Until the TAS is installed the current sonars will not be able to detect a sub,becos there is no ASW helo too! The point I've repeatedly made is that without its full armamement and sensors it will be a sitting ducks.I was not the one who said that the helo,etc.was not "intrinsic"to the vessel! They are part and parcel of the entire ship. The ship will be severely handicapped if the key weapon systems or sensors are absent.They all need to work together in one unified combat system so that when under attack the ship automatically chooses the best methods/weapons/decoys for defence,or a combination of systems.

This attitude is like sending into battle a one-armed or one-legged soldier! Asinine.

For quite some time now IN warships have been commissioned without full features.Fine in peacetime but inordinate delays in fitting remaining systems also result in the warship not achieving its full capability as the crew will also have to learn how to operate the systems in diff. conditions at a later date.Training a crew to exploit the vessel's full capability also requires all systems aboard and a full work up.Have the first two P-28s been "fully loaded as yet?

For missile defence multi-layered systems are reqd.Just Mareech alone will not suffice.Both soft and hard kill systems are needed.The Kamortas require a short to med range SAM beyond 20km,the usual range of gun/missile BPDMS systems.Take the Talwars.Both Shtil and Kashtan.Other IN warships have Barak plus 30mm gatlings instead.The main 100mm gun RU is reported to have the ability to take out two incoming missiles one after the other from a max of 20km . Otomelara 76mm SR
claim an ability to engage incoming missiles (subsonic only) at 5km range and hit 3-4 before they are 1 km out.
However,highly terminal manoeuvring missiles will be v.difficult to counter.Incoming missiles,salvoes are to be expected, have to be countered at max range by another missile system.

These are primarily ASW warships and therefore they must have their full sensors and weaponry aboard asap.Waiting for a few years before they are fitted is tragic.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 22 Oct 2017 21:23

Philip wrote:Varunastra will be useless if the vessel cannot detect the sub at 40-50km ranges.Until the TAS is installed the current sonars will not be able to detect a sub,becos there is no ASW helo too!

Buying the ASW helo & towed array wasn't the responsibility of those who designed & built the ship. It'll be equipped with them when the purchase is sanctioned & the equipment delivered.

The point I've repeatedly made is that without its full armamement and sensors it will be a sitting ducks.I was not the one who said that the helo,etc.was not "intrinsic"to the vessel! They are part and parcel of the entire ship. The ship will be severely handicapped if the key weapon systems or sensors are absent.

It is BS questioning of the P-28 acquisition for being overpriced & under-armed that is in dispute here (not the necessity of acquiring helos & towed array sonars).

And yes the helo are NOT intrinsic to design of the ship (just like a missile isn't intrinsic to the design of an fighter jet). The crew isn't either. Nor is the fuel. The ship will be 'severely handicapped' without fuel as well but the availability of fuel is not germane to a discussion about the cost of the ship and the merits of its design.

This attitude is like sending into battle a one-armed or one-legged soldier! Asinine.

This isn't about 'attitude'. It is about sticking to the topic at hand (which was about the P-28's design & cost and not about IN's moribund NMRH acquisition) - and not fluttering away on passing thought.

The Kamortas require a short to med range SAM beyond 20km,the usual range of gun/missile BPDMS systems.Take the Talwars.

Or don't take the Talwars. The Talwar is a frigate tasked with frigate-type tasks. The Kamorta is a ASW corvette which will be tasked with ASW. Where there exists an aerial/surface threat - it'll be covered by supporting vessels or aircraft, where there is none, it can operate detached.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20164
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 23 Oct 2017 00:24

You still don't get it and are splitting hairs.The P-28 is an entire package and right now it's half empty.You will never see reason and stick to your blinkered vision.Good luck to you.

Poor crews of the Kamortas if by your standards they have to depend upon another ship for basic anti-air/ missile defence!

PS:You still didn't get it.The Talwars have MR and BPDMS systems two whereas the Kamorta s are supposed to have just one SR system in the future.Pl read what I write.

Here is my last post on the subject which bears out my stand on the issue.The CAG report in the ET of Jul 21/2017.

CAG slams navy for delay in ASW corvette project.
Main points.
1.Inordinate delay.GRSE given LOI in 2003 but design mods continued till 2005.
2.4 warships NOT fitted with required weapons and sensors due to which they "could not perform to full potential as envisaged."
3.CAG severely critical of the IN's DND ( Naval Design )
"in finalising designs" as approved designs were amended
"24" times!
4.18 weapons and sensors to be fitted.Only "X" ( classified) fitted.
5.6 weapon and sensors yet to be proven pending SAT completion.

In effect even of the weapons and sensors fitted,not the entire package,6 have yet to be proven.

The report speaks for itself,others can disagree if they like it's their prerogative,but this is the official CAG report 3 months ago.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20164
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 23 Oct 2017 02:11

PS:For the record.Cost escalation for IN warships:
P-15A ....225%., P-17,......260%, P-28.....157%.
P-28 costs vary from $470+M to $700+M to even $1B in a Wiki stat. which must be too high.One has to wait for the CAG off. over-budget figs.If $430M was initial budget costs the escalation fig.% of $700M would appear correct.And this is WITHOUT the missing sensors and weaponry.Therefore the $1B fig in Wiki may not be far off the mark.

Found a TOI report which said that the 6 German ACTAS sonars were going to 3 Talwars and 3 Delhis not P-28s.The proposal was acquiring TOT to build them here.20 more to be acquired from 2018,Kamortas will get them "when they go in for refit.."! When will that take place?

Confusion reg.SR SAMs.Some reports say MICA only 18 km range ,others Barak.One report says 8 Klubs can be fitted (between the stack and superstructure?).We'll know only in the fullness of time.

PS:Ckd. another report questioning its low range /endurance.3750 nm range.Cruising speed at 18 kts gives approx 450-500 nm/ day.That gives an endurance of approx 8-10 days max. Insufficient if operating alone without tanker support.Non-AIP subs can operate approx 45 days on patrol.It's going to be v.difficult for her to operate on her own esp as she is 3000t+ dpl. Cost to capability ratio high in comparison with other comparative IN vessels.Large crew too.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4327
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 23 Oct 2017 04:44

Philip wrote:...
Poor crews of the Kamortas if by your standards they have to depend upon another ship for basic anti-air/ missile defence!

...

With SR-SAM quite a long ways off (at least 5+years), P-28s would need to be armed with something temporary like Barak-1 from retiring three/two Godavari-class (each were armed with 24 × Barak SAM (3 × 8 cell VLS units)), or something more permanent with Barak-8. The latter would be an expensive option given all of the long-range sensors that may be required for integration. While options are being explored, one would think some MANPADS would be deployed as an absolute minimum.

atma
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 04 Jun 2006 23:37
Location: Frozen Tundra

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby atma » 23 Oct 2017 06:23

I just find it ludicrous that we send our unarmed, likely under sensor-ed "sophisticated front line ships" like the P29 to faraway exercises. It is like we are just testing them to make the trip to the pacific and back. And oops! they had a mishap at the dock. What did we learn from these exercise? The Philippine Navy rejected the Kamorta class, citing financial issues with the yard. I am sure they saw a couple of bloated boats with no teeth as commissioned, and got disillusioned ( This was the opinion of a Philippine jingo I happen to know.) In any event, like I told him, We need to arm our boats, fill our orders before we try try sell to other navies!

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 23 Oct 2017 09:41

Philip wrote:You still don't get it and are splitting hairs.The P-28 is an entire package and right now it's half empty.You will never see reason and stick to your blinkered vision.Good luck to you.

Your argument isn't sophisticated enough that 'not getting it' is an issue. Stick to the topic at hand. How hard is that? You may be outraged at the helo shortage but so what? It is a fleet-wide shortage and not specific to the Kamorta.

The IN's shortage of NMRHs doesn't stop you from plugging away for more Talwars. But it somehow becomes an issue when the value of the Kamortas in question.

Poor crews of the Kamortas if by your standards they have to depend upon another ship for basic anti-air/ missile defence!

Pray tell, what is so wrong with that? The carriers provide first line defence against aerial & surface threats, the destroyers provide area air defence, frigates provide perimeter defence & corvettes protect the fleet against undersea threats. All the types cover each other to form a cohesive comprehensive fighter force.

Just because the Russians do it differently doesn't make it wrong.

PS:You still didn't get it.The Talwars have MR and BPDMS systems two whereas the Kamorta s are supposed to have just one SR system in the future.Pl read what I write.

Ah of course, of course. Kind of figured that the smears on the Kamorta were about justifying the purchase of the (so much superior) Talwars.

CAG slams navy for delay in ASW corvette project.
.
.
.
P-28 costs vary from $470+M to $700+M to even $1B in a Wiki stat. which must be too high.

Yes there was a delay. And? How does that diminish the vessel's value to the IN?

FYI that's $1 bn for four ships i.e. $250 mn per ship (not $1 bn per ship like the Grigorovich currently being negotiated).

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Gagan » 23 Oct 2017 09:45

Armament and Sensors remains a weak point with the Indian Navy. The IN imports nearly a 100% of these on its capital ships

When the IN says, they have high indigenization on their ships, this is like the Airforce saying, that 100% of their airport hangers and runways are made in India or the Army stating that the bricks and cement used in the Sanghars and bunkers have a high indigenous content.

The MoD will gladly spend 1200 crores on cost escalation on the M-777 howitzer, but no money available for local R&D for domestic armament development. Worse, one wonders if there are actually programs to gradually replace all imported hardware, and then jump into exporting these.
Sad, very sad.
Last edited by Gagan on 23 Oct 2017 09:56, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 23 Oct 2017 09:54

atma wrote:I just find it ludicrous that we send our unarmed, likely under sensor-ed "sophisticated front line ships" like the P29 to faraway exercises.

This is peacetime. You could send a full armed & equipped destroyer in its stead. If someone decided to sink it, irrespective of the consequences, they could very well do that. Similarly, we could take down the odd PLAN ship or two that sails into the IOR every now and then.

It is like we are just testing them to make the trip to the pacific and back. And oops! they had a mishap at the dock. What did we learn from these exercise?

We learned the same thing we learn from all exercises.

The Philippine Navy rejected the Kamorta class, citing financial issues with the yard. I am sure they saw a couple of bloated boats with no teeth as commissioned, and got disillusioned ( This was the opinion of a Philippine jingo I happen to know.)

You have that backwards. The Philippine Navy selected the Kamorta class i.e. it made the technical cut. Its the vendor i.e. GRSE that was disqualified on grounds of financial capacity (reportedly because the GoI refused/delayed provision of a financial guarantee for the company).

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Gagan » 23 Oct 2017 09:59

Wasn't the Kamorta Class much more expensive than their budget?
The stealth features on the Kamorta are top class, which the Philipine Navy didn't want to pay for.
They wanted mundane things like a 3 tube torpedo launcher vs a 2 tube one on the Kamorta etc, and then ended up giving the contract to a much cheaper SoKo design

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20164
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 23 Oct 2017 10:09

Pl get your facts right.You never lrovide any hard ebidence to back up your fantasies.Each Kamorta is $700M+ not $250M! Read the CAG report please and my figs. from various reports. Over 150% cost escalation WITHOUT the missing sensors,helo and SAMs,etc. It is the CAG is they who "severely"criticised the IN.Even at that escalated price without dev. sensors and weaponry they are incapable of their task.

I am placing hard facts on the table not casual statements.
This makes them almost as expensive as the Talwars /Adm.Grig. batch which come with BMos,B-8 ASW help,etc.,fully armed.The second batch from Yantar cost us only $1.6B for 3 frigates pl read 2013 media reports.
The approx $100M diff in cost between the original P-28s ($400M+) first batch and Talwars ($535M) is understandable as the Talwars are about 20-25% larger.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 23 Oct 2017 10:13

Gagan wrote:Armament and Sensors remains a weak point with the Indian Navy. The IN imports nearly a 100% of these on its capital ships

??
Sensors:
- FCRs are imported.
- Towed array units are imported (domestic alternative under development - Nagin).
- Integral sonars are domestic (HUMSA-series)

Armament:
- Torpedoes are domestic (Varunastra)
- Barak-1 & Klubs were imported
- RBU-6000, 76 mm gun & AK-630 are produced locally under license
- Barak-8 & BrahMos are produced via JV
- DRDO's QRSAM will likely supplant the Barak-1 in the IN

There's still a long ways to go but the situation is not all that bleak.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 23 Oct 2017 10:30

Philip wrote:Pl get your facts right.You never lrovide any hard ebidence to back up your fantasies.Each Kamorta is $700M+ not $250M!
.
.
.
The approx $100M diff in cost between the original P-28s ($400M+) first batch and Talwars ($535M) is understandable as the Talwars are about 20-25% larger.

1. There's only ever been one batch of P28s. So please drop the first batch/second batch nonsense.

2. The P28's project cost is Rs 7,800 crore (having escalated from the Rs 3,200 crores originally budgeted). That's Rs 1,950 crore per ship or $300 mil at the current exchange rate (and what the the Wiki article alludes to).

3. Its been two days. Have you finally managed to locate that 'media reports' about the Ka-226 being selected over the Fennec?
_________________________________________________________

Named after the erstwhile Petya Class ship from USSR ex-Kamorta, the new Kamorta has been indigenously conceived and designed by the Navy's Directorate Of Naval Design and constructed at GRSE, Kolkata at a cost Rs 7852.39 crore for all four ships in the class. - Link

Designed by the Directorate of Naval Design and built by Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engineers, the contract for the construction of four P28 ships was signed in June, 2012, with the project priced at Rs 7,800 crore. - Link

In a boost to India’s defence exports in a region of strategic importance, Kolkata-based public sector yard Garden Reach Ship Builders (GRSE) has emerged as the lowest bidder to supply two warships to the Philippines Navy. Philippines which has territorial disputes with China over the South China Sea has announced plans to beef up its Navy and issued a tender in December 2013 for two frigates with a budget of Philippine peso 18 billion or about $437 million translating to about $218.5 million per ship with delivery of both ships to be completed in about four years. - Link
Last edited by Viv S on 23 Oct 2017 11:08, edited 2 times in total.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Gagan » 23 Oct 2017 10:36

VivS ji
- Main gun and CIWS is licence produced or imported outright
- Varunastra still not deployed? last I heard it had cleared trials, but awaiting orders
- No cruise missile other than BRAHMOS. Need a DRDO Harpoon / Exocet / Klub. / Kaliber like ship/sub launched missile that will be standardized and mass produced and upgraded
- Towed sonar
- Targeting radars get imported with the weapon system
- It doesn’t look good that the main sensor is still imported
- SAMs
Most of these are like 5-10 yrs away from deployment

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Gagan » 23 Oct 2017 10:39

Main engines, gearboxes, propellers are being imported too

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 23 Oct 2017 10:50

Gagan wrote:VivS ji
- Main gun and CIWS is licence produced or imported outright
- Varunastra still not deployed? last I heard it had cleared trials, but awaiting orders
- No cruise missile other than BRAHMOS. Need a DRDO Harpoon / Exocet / Klub. / Kaliber like ship/sub launched missile that will be standardized and mass produced and upgraded
- Towed sonar
- Targeting radars get imported with the weapon system
- It doesn’t look good that the main sensor is still imported
- SAMs
Most of these are like 5-10 yrs away from deployment

- BrahMos is good enough for now. It'll be replaced by the BrahMos-2 in due course and supplemented by the Nirbhay whenever that project fructifies.

- Wrt to Varunastra. RM Hands Over Varunastra Torpedo to Indian Navy - Dr. Christopher mentioned that Varunastra, the shipborne anti-submarine torpedo has got the goodwill of Navy as a user which has decided to produce 73 of them, immediately.

- SAMs like I said will be a mix of the LR-SAM & (eventually) Astra-based QR-SAM

- Radars are an issue yes.

(No ji for me please. Viv will do, if you like.)

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 23 Oct 2017 10:53

Gagan wrote:Wasn't the Kamorta Class much more expensive than their budget?
The stealth features on the Kamorta are top class, which the Philipine Navy didn't want to pay for.
They wanted mundane things like a 3 tube torpedo launcher vs a 2 tube one on the Kamorta etc, and then ended up giving the contract to a much cheaper SoKo design

It was the cheapest of the four entries in the competition. GRSE was the lowest bidder.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20164
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 23 Oct 2017 10:58

Gaan,actually the deal for the Philippines was a v.good one.Supposedly based on a lighter fitted out Kamorta .We were the best offer both technically and costwise. We didn't know the "local lingo " needed to "oil" the deal,you get my drift.A bogus argument that the shipyard (belonging to the GOI) didn't possess fin. backing/guarantee scuppered the deal.Sadly our MEA has been very lukewarm in promoting Indian industry ,esp. def. systems.We are also a major threat to established global majors as they fear our vast potential.Only G to G deals like those with Vietnam,etc. are progressing well.

When fully armed if reports are accurate with B-1 and possibly Klub as is sometimes mentioned plus TAS,etc.,they will be fine warships except for poor speed which needs to be greater prosecuting subs.However the final cost is another matter.I am not sure of the real reasons (top heavy?) for slicing off 100t .Battle damage another factor.Remember the Amazon class FFGs in the Falklands? Their al. superstructure melted in the heat.Composites? I wonder what tests have been done reg. protection/fire issues.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20164
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 23 Oct 2017 12:54

This is a an even more damning report ith CAG details.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cit ... 719163.cms
CAG lays bare breaches in Navy’s anti-sub corvettes

Jayanta Gupta | TNN | Updated: Jul 23, 2017,
KOLKATA: Indian Navy's anti-submarine warfare (ASW) corvettes INS Kamorta and INS Kadmatt may be touted as extremely lethal but if the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) is to be believed, both are little more than overweight, lumbering, under-equipped and untried platforms due to the Navy's delay in finalizing designs.

INS Kamorta was commissioned in 2014 and INS Kadmatt a couple of years later.
According to one of the CAG's latest reports, the Directorate of Naval Design (DND) hadn't finalized the design for the ASW corvettes when issuing the Letter of Intent to Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers (GRSE) Ltd in Kolkata. DND finalized the design in 2006 but continued to modify it till 2008.

In 2003, it had been decided that the corvettes would have a displacement of 2,500 tonnes and achieve maximum speeds of 25 knots and cruising speeds of 18 knots. When the contract was signed in June, 2012, the displacement was increased to 3,170 tonnes. During audit, it was revealed that INS Kamorta and INS Kadmatt have displacements of 3,384 tonnes and 3,499 tonnes respectively and their maximum speeds are 23.9 knots and 22.8 knots.
*(this is simply shocking.Some conv. subs have the same top speed as their K hunters!)

"The drop in the achievement of the specified speed was mainly due to the increase in their weights by over 800 tonnes," the report states. The increase in weight of the corvettes was due to the adoption of various signature reduction measures or stealth capabilities. In a last ditch effort to maintain proper weight, the DND suggested in May 2009 that GRSE use composite superstructures instead of steel ones in the last three of four corvettes of the Kamorta-class being built by GRSE. This would bring down their weights by 70-80 tonnes each. However, due to the lead time required in procuring composite material from foreign vendors, GRSE is using them only in the last two ships that are yet to be delivered.

It was also observed during audit that the INS Kamorta and INS Kadmatt haven't been fitted with a particular weapon and sensor systems and can't perform to their full potential. Till December, 2016, the Harbour Acceptance Trials of the INS Kadmatt were still pending. Sea Acceptance Test (SAT) is also conducted to test a vessel's speed, maneuverability, equipment and safety features.
"It was observed that SAT on six weapons and sensors on the INS Kamorta and all weapons and sensors on INS Kadmatt are pending satisfactory completion. Thus, the effectiveness of the main features of anti-submarine warfare are yet to be proved," the report states.


pS:Just one xcpt. from the report.
Audit contends that increase in the weights of Corvettes vis-à-vis the envisaged weight was owing to absence of a concrete plan for build of ships.A major change in construction plan/methodology in the middle of a major project involving construction of series of ships spoke of inadequate
preparation before sanction of project and resulted in non-commitment to sanctioned outlay with involvement of major escalation in construction cost. Further, the decision to go for composite super structure was taken as late as in May 2009 and placement of order in September 2010 with the lead time of 15 to 23 months had a cascading delay on the construction schedule.

Management replied (December 2016) that the use of advanced technology by
way of carbon-composite super-structure was decided upon by the customer,
considering various aspects including reduction of the overall weight of the
ship and adoption of new technology in shipbuilding.
Reply is not convincing and indicated the faulty design specifications of the
ships upfront
.

Management agreed with audit observation and added that at the time of LoI
only a sketchy specification of the ships was made available and finalisation of
system design was yet to be undertaken by DND
.(!) :mrgreen:


This indicates that the DND of the IN was primarily at fault asking GRSE to build a corvette whose design was grossly incomplete and hadn't a clue as to how heavy the warship would be or what the final costs would too! Heads should roll at NHQ/DND. You can't blame GRSE alone for most of the delays,etc.

[quote]Thus, DND’s failure to freeze the design before issue of LoI and
commencement of construction concurrently without appropriate monitoring
and target timelines resulted in delay in construction of the Corvettes
.

Reply is not convincing as the single vendors on whom GRSE placed orders
delayed the supplies.The delay had a significant impact on the Anti-submarine
warfare capabilities of the Indian Navy. Though the ASW capability of the
Indian Navy was severely depleted considering decommissioning of Petya
class ASW Corvettes by 2003 and decommissioning of Leander/Nilgiri class
Frigates with ASW capabilities by 2012, the first ASW Corvette was delivered
only in July 2014 without major Defence and Offence capabilities[
/quote]

So gentlemen,what's the verdict on the "K" class? I rest my case.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20164
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 23 Oct 2017 13:33

Some more shockers.Since desi eqpt. to protect the ship from missile salvos couldn't be developed in time,the eqpt. req. was simply dropped!
Did I not say earlier that missile salvos would find the K's defenceless?


2.1.3.4. Non-installation of all the weapons and sensor systems.
Against the 18 weapons and sensors to be installed on ASW Corvettes, Audit observed that the two ASW Corvettes delivered were not fitted with X weapon and sensor systems viz. Equipment ‘A’ which included Equipment ‘B’ and Equipment ‘C’ to make the ASW Corvette perform to its full potential asenvisaged. The issues are discussed below:

a. Equipment ‘A’:
Equipment ‘A’ provided detecting, locating, tracking and classifying all types of sub-surface targets like torpedoes, mines, submarines, etc. to the corvettes.
Equipment ‘B’, which was a part of Equipment ‘A’, protected the corvette from torpedo attack by diverting the incoming torpedo towards the false target created by the Expendable Decoy Launcher.
Equipment ‘C’ is a launcher employed to decoy the torpedo away from the ship.

As per the Statement of Requirements (SOR) formulated by GRSE, the
Equipment ‘A’ was to detect  dived conventional submarines and on motors up to a certain range in
active detection range;  dived conventional submarines and on motors up to a certain range inpassive mode and  torpedoes at certain range.

The induction of Equipment ‘A’ was planned (June 1998) under project Nagan

which was to be designed and developed by Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL), Cochin with M/s Bharat Electronics
Limited (BEL) as the production agency. The Research and Development (R&D) model productionised by BEL was installed on INS Sharada for
conducting User Evaluation Trials (UET). However, the Equipment ‘A’ did not meet the requirement of Naval Staff Qualitative Requirements (NSQR). In view of this, the project Nagan was shelved in July 2010.
In the meanwhile, IN conducted trials (2008) with L-3OS system which was successful. The trials conducted in 2010 and 2011 by BEL with L-3OS systems were successful. IN carried out trials with ATLAS system during 2011 and based on the trials, invited bids for Advanced Equipment ‘A’ (Equipment ‘A’-ADV) in which ATLAS was L1 and BEL was L2.

During the joint ship survey by BEL and ATLAS on the corvette during February and November 2014, it was found that the fitment of Equipment ‘A’of ATLAS needed major structuralmodification to the ship. (!) Considering the cost implication of ATLAS Equipment ‘A’-ADV, BEL submitted (August 2015) its statement of case to IN for signing MoU with L-3OS. IHQ gave concurrence (November 2015) to
go ahead with L-3OS and to process the case with Department of Defence Production (DDP). Case was under process with DDP (January 2017).
Development of Equipment ‘B’ was taken up by DRDO and as the user trials did not meet the NSQR, the same was not installed on the corvette. :rotfl:
Equipment ‘C’ was deleted from the scope of IAC MOD-C since it failed in user trials. :rotfl:
DND stated (January 2017) that MoU between BEL and ToT partner was
required to ensure installation of the Equipment ‘A’ system and the same was awaited from BEL. It further stated that Equipment ‘B’ was envisaged to be integrated with Equipment ‘A’ and Equipment ‘C’ was part of Equipment ‘B’
which was under trials and hence, not supplied.

Thus, due to IN’s failure to decide on suitable Equipment ‘A’ system despite successful completion of trials, Equipment ‘A’, Equipment ‘B’ and Equipment‘C’ were not installed on the corvettes delivered and hence, the ability of ASW Corvettes for submarine and torpedo detection was hampered. :oops:

b. Equipment ‘D’Equipment ‘D’ is the corvette’s self defence system against missile attack.
Equipment ‘D’ provides double layered defence along with augmented
Report No.19 of 2017 26
capability to defend against salvo attack (multiple missile attack). X Equipment ‘D’ were envisaged on board of each Corvette for accommodating
certain Equipment ‘D’ missiles on board. Equipment ‘D’ was Buyer Furnished Equipment i.e., IHQ(N) had to supply this to GRSE as per the delivery
required by GRSE. Procurement and installation of the system on board was not included in the shipbuilding contract. GRSE had to cater only for space for installation of Equipment ‘D’ missiles on board.
*(So this indecision on choosing the system means extra cost at a later date!)
Equipment ‘D’ was to be developed by Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Hyderabad and manufactured by M/s Bharat Dynamics Limited. As DRDO could not develop Equipment ‘D’ in time, the fitment of Equipment ‘D’ was delinked from the project. :lol:

In accordance with IHQ(N) Memo of November 2006, Development systems and equipment were to be included for ships being designed by the Indian
Navy and in case the development was not successful or did not comply with the time schedule indicated, alternate proven equipment was to be nominated to ensure procurement and integration within the shipbuilding time frame. Non
fitment of the weapon systems was in violation of the IN’s instructions. DND stated (January 2017) that despite the best efforts, it was not possible to develop the Equipment ‘D’ and a draft Request for Indent (RFI) for progressing the case was formulated and forwarded for comments of external
agencies. Further, certain close in weapon systems were fitted to provide the Corvettes with Point Defence against anti-ship missiles.
Due to non availability of Equipment ‘D’, ASW Corvettes did not have double
layered defence along with augmented capability to defend against salvo
attack
:((


*(This is the most atrocious decision taken which ensures that our Kamortas will be sitting ducks against enemy missiles.great work team IN/DRDO!)

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 23 Oct 2017 13:43

Philip wrote:Gaan,actually the deal for the Philippines was a v.good one.

Nobody told them it costed $700 mil huh?

*(this is simply shocking.Some conv. subs have the same top speed as their K hunters!)

The IN specifies a speed of 25 knots and finds out the Kamorta can only do 23.9 knots. Horrifying indeed.

This indicates that the DND of the IN was primarily at fault asking GRSE to build a corvette whose design was grossly incomplete and hadn't a clue as to how heavy the warship would be or what the final costs would too!

That's interesting. Over on the PAK FA thread you're preaching about how we ought to be paying the Russians upfront for an aircraft who's design is grossly incomplete, who's capability is open to question and who's 'final cost' is up in the air.

Then again, its unsurprising that you'd hold an indigenous project to a higher standard than what the Russians offer. And that delays/bureaucratic hurdles in a domestic project would be source of mirth for you.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20164
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 23 Oct 2017 13:53

Phil. design was not the equiv of the K series meant for us with all the bells and whistles,and a price was quoted initially chosen being L-1.

From the CAG report the extra weight ,800t ,is primarily responsible for the warship unable to meet the req. speed,just 25kts.,which is actually low for an ASW vessel. Our Nilgiris and Godavaris had about the same speed 28kts.,Petyas 30+ kts.,and Talwars and Shivs approx 32+ kts.Reducing the weight by 100t is not going to make much of a difference too and one must remember that the Ks have not been equipped with their SAMs,TAS,ASW helo and if some are right,Klubs too. There is a P-28A req. somewhere with better armament,but it's going to take some time before the DND /DRDO can iron out the defects and deficiencies.

It is going to be interesting to see what the Inshore (shallow water) ASW corvettes of about 700t+ bring to the table.

PS:Reg. the FGFA/SU_57 pl ck the FGFA td. with latest news about the SU-57 and its status of development ,eqpt. details in full,and induction into service in 2019. I've never advcoated thta we buy an incomplete FGFA.In fact my quote has been on the issue for the record, "no indecent haste". Also don't forget official statements earlier this yr. that both sides (Ru and Ind) had agreed upon all tech parameters. WE wanted 3 prototypes with which we could put through their paces and modify the basic SU-57 MK-1 to our individual requirements.The price for that was to be decided upon later.

PPS:Reports persist that the IN may get 4 Backfires from Ru to be used for LR maritime strike ,a very welcome event when it happens>Ironic that 3-4 decades ago the (myopic) IAF rejected the Sov. offer of a fleet of Backfire bombers! These would've also come in at friendship prices.There are sev. dozen mothballed in Ru ,but would need considerable modernisation .We may eventually want another batch of 4 after the first lot has arrived. These would be worthy replacements for the retd. Bears,as the P-8Is have picked up the ASW mission ,Backfitres expected to do the biz of LR maritime strike.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 23 Oct 2017 14:28

Philip wrote:Phil. design was not the equiv of the K series meant for us with all the bells and whistles,and a price was quoted initially chosen being L-1.

Which means what exactly? They used cheaper carpeting & generic paint and the price dropped from $700 mil to $200 mil?

From the CAG report the extra weight ,800t ,is primarily responsible for the warship unable to meet the req. speed,just 25kts.,which is actually low for an ASW vessel.

25 knots is what the IN asked for. What the vessel can do is close enough. The Kiltan & Kavaratti will meet the req. speed spec completely.

one must remember that the Ks have not been equipped with their SAMs,TAS,ASW helo and if some are right,Klubs too.

- If Talwars can sail around without TAS for a decade+ for the first batch and over five years for the second batch, the Kamortas can go a couple of years as well (while they work up to operational status).

- The IN's (depleted) ASW helo fleet isn't married to any particular class. Helos can be assigned to any ship depending on operational requirements including the Kamorta.

- Its an ASW corvette. There was never any question of equipping it with Klubs (irrespective of what the Russians have done).

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 23 Oct 2017 14:30

Philip wrote:I've never advcoated thta we buy an incomplete FGFA.In fact my quote has been on the issue for the record, "no indecent haste".

Bullshit.

This is your actual quote -

Philip wrote:The second point,to maintain qualitaive superiority necessitates the acquisition asap of a 5th-gen fighter.Here,in whatever shape or form,the FGFA deal must be sealed.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1698
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby sudeepj » 23 Oct 2017 22:17

Shalya Vriti.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Indranil » 24 Oct 2017 00:12

Philip saab,

You can pick up any auditor's report (from countries which allow the auditor's report to be made public) and they will all read the same. It is amiracle how any of US, UK's fleets are working according to these reports.

By the way, one of my friends during my graduate studies was a research associate who in his past used to man a Russian ICBM silo. If you hear his stories, it is a miracle that he has all his fingers and nothing growing out of his head.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests